It's still probably too early for an "E Line" topic, but given the announcement in the aBRT general thread, I moved some conversation here.

Something that gives me pause is that reconstruction of Hennepin Avenue is not yet in the Capital Improvements Project plan. That means it is extremely unlikely to take place before 2021 (the furthest out year of the current plan). If you assume the B Line (Lake St) and D Line (Chicago-Fremont) open around 2020-2021, that would put the E Line in 2022 at the earliest. Metro Transit wouldn't want to open an aBRT line on a street that has an impending reconstruction, so you have to assume there will be some attempt to time the two projects.

Has anyone heard anything about getting Hennepin (bottleneck to Lake) reconstruction scheduled for the early 2020s? Recall that earlier this year the City started holding meetings about Hennepin Ave downtown (Washington to 12th St), even though that is scheduled for 2020 construction.

Let's not sell bus improvements short. The A line was a small investment in the grand scheme of things and there is no reason why bus improvements have to come in the form of the full suite of improvements. Cities, counties, and transit agencies could invest strategically to improve key problem spots.

For example, bus shoulders/lanes through key congestion points would be a political investment with modest amounts for signage and paint. Traffic signal priority, depending on how it is executed, at key intersections is not as expensive as you'd think. Doing it along an entire corridor is more expensive and certainly is influenced by existing traffic signal equipment and the type of priority being provided.

What would likely be in the more expensive bucket is specialized bus fleet, major shelter construction, and off-vehicle payment vending. While these items help take bus service to the next level, if resources are constrained (which they are), focus should go toward looking system-wide for the types of improvements that could be afforded.

In Minneapolis, the city could propose creating a program to improve bus operations by investing in traffic signal improvements/detection devices, signage, and paint. As a program, it could target key opportunity spots instead of trying to geographically target the investment to strictly one corridor that really ought to be addressed as a part of a major rebuild of the street.

Additionally- I think the city and/or county could take a larger role in improving transit amenities on rebuilt corridors. The projects I've seen involve agencies making assumptions about how buses work, or assuming the status quo, and then Metro Transit jumps in at the end. Could the lead agencies on street rebuilds be a little more active on pushing stop consolidation, far-side stop locations, bus bulb/larger amenity-zone space, etc?

The layout shows three "E Line" stops along Hennepin, at Franklin, 25th, and Uptown TC. The rapid bus study from 2011 recommended 24th and 26th, although I suppose there is plenty of time to change the locations.

Hopefully the E Line can start when the construction wraps up in 2023!

Let’s try to keep this topic limited to the portion of Hennepin being reconstructed (and the E Line stations that will be built as part of the project).

Was there something at the meeting confirming that the E Line plan was identical to the 2012 ATCS study? Or are y’all just assuming so? The E Line planning effort doesn’t really begin until 2019-2020 so I’d urge caution on assuming anything.

On one hand, Franklin-25th-Uptown is pretty aggressively far apart for what will be the “main” frequent service in this corridor. That’s probably close to how subway/LRT stations would be spaced in this environment.

The downside is that wide station spacing is too far to eliminate local stops entirely. While aBRT isn’t going to have stops exactly every 1/4-mile, an alternate of Franklin - 24th - 26th(or midblock 26th/27th) - Uptown might be a reasonable distance that would still allow elimination of remaining local stops in this stretch

If there were ever a subway, there would likely be only one station in between Loring Park and Uptown Transit Center. Stations are expensive. That said, aBRT is not as capital intensive. Things to consider: how should surface transit operate in this section, especially if there are both local and aBRT routes? aBRT will need to occasionally pass local buses.

I would hope that Hennepin improvements would include at least:
- buses the ability to get in front of the general purpose traffic, such as bus only signals with leading interval timing.
- bus only lanes between Franklin and 25th, at least.
- removal of the bus stops at 28th and 22nd
- no beg buttons
- improved crosswalks that make it much more clear to drivers that they should stop further back and that they shouldn't queue in the intersection
- additional left-turn restrictions
- managed public parking on the side streets for first block between Hennepin and adjacent streets to off-set lost parking along Hennepin

I believe so. As I understand it, the beg buttons have to be at the far side of the crosswalk from their parallel street, and that's where the speakers for the audio cues have to be located. At least, that's the explanation I got for why the new Nicollet crosswalks have beg buttons (that can't actually be pressed, because the walk signs always come on) on separate poles from the actual stoplights, even though the stoplight poles have covered cutouts that are very clearly intended to be where the beg buttons are mounted.

thatchio wrote:If there were ever a subway, there would likely be only one station in between Loring Park and Uptown Transit Center. Stations are expensive. That said, aBRT is not as capital intensive. Things to consider: how should surface transit operate in this section, especially if there are both local and aBRT routes? aBRT will need to occasionally pass local buses.

I would hope that Hennepin improvements would include at least:
- removal of the bus stops at 28th and 22nd

Agree with everything you said except this. There's a senior mid-rise at that intersection. I'd prefer a stop there rather than at 27th. Yes, it's close to the transit center but the disproportionate number of transit-dependent people there justifies it.

Bus-only lanes should go all the way to Lake. Opening then to carpools would also be fine. They would need to be enforced.

Point taken about the audio-alerting functions of the beg button. I was intending more that one shouldn't have to press the button to get a walk.

As for 28th bus stop, it'd be useful to get some data on how many mobility restricted individuals use it. I found that stop extremely frustrating as it rarely seemed to have seniors or others with clear mobility needs. Minneapolis has far too many bus stops in general. Makes the 6 extremely frustrating to use if you're going south of Uptown. If I were to be more bold, I'd say get rid of stops at 22nd, 25th (except if that's where the E line stop is), 28th, and Lake Street. If 25th is for the E, then get rid of 22nd, 24th, and 26th, and keeping 27th.

I guess it depends on the definition of "mobility limited." Many such people don't have obvious physical disabilities. I'd like to see data too. More may use the stop off-peak, which I don't have a lot of anecdata about.